On September 26, a letter addressed “to the citizens of the State of New York” appeared in the New York Journal. Its author, identifying himself as Cato (later believed to have been New York’s governor, George Clinton), declared his intent to avoid “directly engaging as an advocate for this new form of national government, or as an opponent.” He reminded his readers that they had “established an original compact” between themselves and their governors, “a fact heretofore unknown in the formations of the government of the world.” Now, there are proposals to alter that compact. "That alteration lies before you, for your consideration.” But, he cautioned, “deliberate on this new national government with coolness; analyze it with criticism; and reflect on it with candor.”
Cato’s letter was printed two days before the Confederation Congress voted to refer the Constitution to the individual States to be debated in ratifying conventions elected by the people. However, the tone of the letter was ominous, displaying Cato’s suspicion of those who had proposed the new government. “Beware of those who wish to influence your passions, and to make you dupes to their resentments and little interests,” he continued. “Personal invectives can never persuade, but they always fix prejudices which candor might have removed – those who deal in them have not your happiness at heart.”
The letter concluded with the promise, “when it will be necessary,” to “make such observations on this new constitution, as will tend to promote your welfare, and be justified by reason and truth.” Cato will go on to author more essays, decidedly in opposition to the Constitution.
On October 1, the New York Daily Advertiser published a reply to Cato, later believed to have been written by Alexander Hamilton. Styling himself as Caesar and dubbing Cato as “an ally of Pompey, no doubt,” furthering the ancient Roman analogy, Caesar chose to respond to Cato in kind: that is, he did not defend the Constitution itself, but challenged Cato’s pretense at objectivity. Cato’s entire essay, he charged, was “calculated, as far as such a thing can influence, to prejudice the public opinion against the New Constitution.” In fact, he continued, “If this demagogue had talents to throw light on the subject, why did he not offer them when the Convention was in session?” How can Cato say that “the door is now open to see any amendments, or to give us another Constitution, if required?”
Caesar was unequivocal: “the door of recommendation is shut and cannot be opened by the same men,” he asserted. “The Convention, in one word is dissolved: if so, we must reject, IN TOTO, or vice versa; just take it as it is; and be thankful.” It is likely that Caesar (Hamilton) was quite aware of the identify of Cato, for in his response he noted that Cato would “probably be one of the Electors.” Cato, in turn, responded to Caesar in the New York Journal on October 11, but the real debate on the Constitution began when Brutus, Caesar’s historic and current nemesis, entered the fray.
A week later, on October 18, the New York Journal published yet another letter addressed “to the citizens of the State of New York.” This time, the author was Brutus, believed by most scholars to have been Robert Yates, one of two of New York’s delegates to the Constitutional Convention who had left in protest in early July. Unlike Cato’s first address to the people advising caution and “cool deliberation,” Brutus launched a full-blown attack on the Constitution itself, advising “every man who is a friend to the liberty and happiness of mankind, not to adopt it.”
Brutus will go on to draft at least sixteen articles critical of the Constitution. In “Brutus I” he concentrated on “whether the thirteen United States should be reduced to one great republic, governed by one legislature, and under the direction of one executive and judiciary; or whether they should continue thirteen confederated republics, under the direction and control of a supreme federal head for certain defined national purposes only.” Appealing to “the greatest and wisest men who ever thought or wrote on the science of government,” including Montesquieu and Beccarari as well as the histories of Greece and Rome, he concluded that a nation as large and diverse as the thirteen United States cannot be governed by one national democratically elected government. “The territory of the United States is of vast extent,” he observed, “and is capable of containing much more than ten times that number…In a republic, the manners, sentiments, and interests of the people should be similar. If this be not the case, there will be a constant clashing of opinions; and the representatives of one part will be continually striving against those of the other.” The United States includes various climates, producing different economies. Their manners and habits differ and “their sentiments are by no means coincident.”
In every government, Brutus continued, execution of the laws is supported either by the people or by armed force. A free republic will never keep a standing army to execute its laws, so the government “must depend upon the support of its citizens.” However, “in a republic so extensive as the United States,” the people are unlikely to have confidence in their government; they “would be acquainted with very few of their rulers…The people in Georgia and New Hampshire would not know one another’s mind…nor be informed of the reasons upon which measures would be founded.”
In a republic “so vast as the United States,” the national government simply would not have “sufficient time to attend to and provide for all the variety of cases that would be continually arising.” The government would lose the confidence of the people, requiring the use of force by the national government to enforce its laws. “They will use the power,” he warned, and “when they have acquired it, to the purposes of gratifying their own interest and ambition.”
In the end, Cato will have written seven essays, Centinel twenty-four, the Federal Farmer at least eighteen, in addition to many more penned by opponents of consolidated government and the Constitution. However, the sixteen essays written by Brutus were clearly the most effective and became the impetus for Alexander Hamilton to devise a series of eighty-five essays later published as The Federalist Papers.